Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Most people beyond fellow demographics junkies will probably consider changes in the overall ranking of one's metropolitan area based upon population changes to be a trivial matter, but I still feel as if this is a topic worthy of discussion.
As of 2012 here's how the deck is stacked for PA's metro areas:
6.) Philadelphia: 6,018,800 (Lost One Spot to Houston from 2010 to 2012)
22.) Pittsburgh: 2,360,733 (No Ranking Change from 2010 to 2012)
68.) Lehigh Valley: 827,171 (Lost One Spot to El Paso from 2010 to 2012)
94.) Scranton/Wilkes-Barre: 563,629 (Gained One Spot from Youngstown from 2010 to 2012)
96.) Harrisburg/Carlisle: 553,980 (No Ranking Change from 2010 to 2012)
101.) Lancaster: 526,823 (No Ranking Change from 2010 to 2012)
114.) York/Hanover: 437,846 (No Ranking Change from 2010 to 2012)
128.) Reading: 413,491 (No Ranking Change from 2010 to 2012)
164.) Erie: 280,646 (No Ranking Change from 2010 to 2012)
238.) East Stroudsburg: 168,798 (Lost One Spot to Sioux City, IA from 2010 to 2012)
259.) State College: 155,171 (No Ranking Change from 2010 to 2012)
268.) Chambersburg/Waynesboro: 151,275 (Gained Two Spots from Rocky Mount, NC and Hanford/Corcoran, CA from 2010 to 2012)
286.) Johnstown: 141,584 (Lost Five Spots to St. George, UT; Valdosta, GA; Odessa, TX; Dalton, GA; and Coeur d'Alene, ID from 2010 to 2012)
295.) Lebanon: 135,251 (Gained Two Spots from Battle Creek, MI and Wausau, WI from 2010 to 2012)
310.) Altoona: 127,121 (No Ranking Change from 2010 to 2012)
327.) Williamsport: 117,168 (No Ranking Change from 2010 to 2012)
350.) Gettysburg: 101,482 (Lost One Spot to The Villages, FL from 2010 to 2012)
368.) Bloomsburg/Berwick: 85,243 (No Ranking Change from 2010 to 2012)
My predictions going forward to 2020, if 2010 to 2012 tends hold reasonably steady and assuming no counties are added to or lost from these core MSAs?
Philadelphia will lose two more spots and be surpassed by Washington, DC and Miami by 2020. Atlanta will be nipping at its heels and will surpass it shortly thereafter. Philadelphia grew by an average of 26,729 people per year from 2010 to 2012 while Washington, DC grew by 112,055 people per year from 2010 to 2012 and Miami grew by 99,041 per year from 2010 to 2012. Atlanta grew by 85,552 people per year from 2010 to 2012.
Given these trends here is what 2020 would look like:
Pittsburgh will lose quite a few positions in ranking. Pittsburgh grew by an average of just 2,224 people per year from 2010 to 2012 after decades of steep decline while Charlotte grew by 39,779 people per year from 2010 to 2012. Portland, OR grew by 31,896 people per year from 2010 to 2012. San Antonio grew by 45,748 people per year from 2010 to 2012. Orlando grew by 44,632 per year from 2010 to 2012. Sacramento grew by 23,678 people per year from 2010 to 2012. Next down on the list are Cincinnati, which showed very slow growth, and Cleveland, which showed a very slow decline. Las Vegas is a few more notches down, but its more rapid growth of 24,745 per year from 2010 to 2012 will let it squeak by both Sacramento and Pittsburgh. Austin would pass Pittsburgh shortly after 2020, knocking it down from its current ranking of 22 to 29. Of course Pittsburgh's growth rate seems to be picking up steam over the past couple of years, and if that continues the position ranking loss might not be quite as severe. We can also hope potable water shortage issues will stunt the growth of some of these booming Sunbelt cities.
Given these trends here is what 2020 would look like:
After seeing our two beloved major cities projected to lose so much prominence by 2020 I need to take a break but will update later with more PA cities.
Philadelphia was ranked #4 from 1950 to 1980, and #5 from 1990 to 2010.
The MSA's outside of New England are constructed to respect county borders. It's a big difference between counties largely defined before the civil war, and counties where the borders were defined in the 20th century,
Houston MSA has 75% more land area than Philadelphia MSA.
I am not sure what the historical definition of Philadelphia's MSA was, compared to Houston.
Location: The Flagship City and Vacation in the Paris of Appalachia
2,773 posts, read 3,857,487 times
Reputation: 2067
I agree with Paco, MSAs like Houston are not really comparable to Philly and I would argue that Philly actually has a larger population if you compare a similar size area. Houston is growing, but much of the growth we are currently seeing in the U.S. is in cities with lower population density and those that are annexing local areas. When I lived in Louisville the city kept growing by leaps and bounds every year because they kept re-defining the boundaries and by the time I left the metro was so much bigger than it had been in the past.
MSAs like Houston are not really comparable to Philly and I would argue that Philly actually has a larger population if you compare a similar size area. Houston is growing, but much of the growth we are currently seeing in the U.S. is in cities with lower population density and those that are annexing local areas.
The "urban area" definition of a metropolis completely ignores municipal, county and sometimes state boundaries. It can even ignore small rural stretches that split two parts of a municipal area.
As such, it is considered a more objective measure of the size of a metropolitan area. It is only calculated by the census bureau every 10 years, and it is not estimated in the interim years.
The 5th, 6th, and 7th metropolitan areas by this metric are:
Although there is not a serious difference between these densities, it often happens that East Coast metropolitan areas have higher densities than the West Coast. That is because while the center cities in the older cities are much higher density, the suburbs of the East Coast cities have larger lots. The West Coast cities have denser suburbs because they were mostly built in more recent years, when real estate developers were more interested in getting more lots per acre.
I'm sorry, but I don't see this as a cause for alarm. Being outpaced, population-wise, by newer, more sprawling cities with a less cohesive urban core is not a cause for concern. Philadelphia and Pittsburgh have been, and will continue to, rise in stature as both cities keep on cleaning up and becoming more desirable by the year.
I'm sorry, but I don't see this as a cause for alarm. Being outpaced, population-wise, by newer, more sprawling cities with a less cohesive urban core is not a cause for concern.
While urban core of Western cities is far less dense since they grew up with automobiles, the suburbs are far more compact. Densities of Western urban areas are higher in the West
New York--Newark, NY—NJ--CT 18,351,295
- 3,450.2 square miles - 5,318.9 people per square mile
Los Angeles--Long Beach--Anaheim, CA 12,150,996
- 1,736.0 square miles - 6,999.3 people per square mile
Remember "urban areas" don't respect the suburban county boundaries the way PMA, MSA, and CSA's do. So you are not likely to see these exact population figures or areas if you are looking at data for these other census agglomerations.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HeavenWood
Philadelphia and Pittsburgh will continue to, rise in stature as both cities keep on cleaning up and becoming more desirable by the year.
As portions of the city are turned into thoroughfares for pedestrians and urban vehicles, you may find these older cities skyrocketing in value.
Mod cut - removed graphic with missing link.
The population of Mexico in 1800 was 6-10 million. Note: at the time, "Mexico" included present-day Mexico, most of Central America (Belize, Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras, Nicaragua, Costa Rica and Panama) as well as today's US States of California, Nevada, Utah, Texas and parts of Colorado, Arizona, New Mexico, and Wyoming. The population of the USA in 1800 was 5.3 million but the then County of Philadelphia was the most densely populated urban area in the country.
The old urban areas of Mexico that were started in the 1700's have become very popular, particularly with older Americans.
Last edited by toobusytoday; 03-29-2013 at 01:44 PM..
Reason: Please just link to pictures that are not your own.
dense suburbs.
philadelphia has been in the process of reducing density for a century. the urbanized area has expanded faster than the population. nonetheless one factor reducing overall density has been population loss in old cities (which isnt a problem in ny). if philadelphias older cities can return to growth it will change the density numbers. philly was 2.2 million at a time when the northeast was sparsely populated, theres much room for growth. pittsburgh was once double its population...to say nothing of places like chester or braddock. the key is to play to their strengths and change the states business environment.
if older cities can return to growth it will change the density numbers. philly was 2.2 million at a time when the northeast was sparsely populated, theres much room for growth.
Yes, if Philadelphia city can gain 460K people then the metro density will equal that of Houston metro density.
But these areas attached to the metros are very large. Philadelphia urban area is 1,981.4 square miles as defined by the census bureau (up from 1800 in 2000). The city is only 135 square miles.
I wasn't making a proscription as much as I was trying to explain the data. People might look at a table where Houston area has a higher density than Philly area, and think it was a mistake.
Of course, the census has announced that true density is not very meaningful, and are pushing "perceived density" as a more reliable metric. "Perceived density" is a weighted average of the densities of all the census tracks.
This is not unusual for cities. The City of London or "The Square Mile" which was the old walled city the Romans built, began losing population shortly after the Great Fire of London in 1666. Today it has a population of about 7000 people and dozens of financial services office buildings, St Paul's Cathedral, and the Bank of England.
Yes, if Philadelphia city can gain 460K people then the metro density will equal that of Houston metro density.
But these areas attached to the metros are very large. Philadelphia urban area is 1,981.4 square miles as defined by the census bureau (up from 1800 in 2000). The city is only 135 square miles.
I wasn't making a proscription as much as I was trying to explain the data. People might look at a table where Houston area has a higher density than Philly area, and think it was a mistake.
Of course, the census has announced that true density is not very meaningful, and are pushing "perceived density" as a more reliable metric. "Perceived density" is a weighted average of the densities of all the census tracks.
This is not unusual for cities. The City of London or "The Square Mile" which was the old walled city the Romans built, began losing population shortly after the Great Fire of London in 1666. Today it has a population of about 7000 people and dozens of financial services office buildings, St Paul's Cathedral, and the Bank of England.
right, it's not just that suburbs are more dense in those areas but density in the older cities has been declining as people moved out of philadelphia into its country thus expanding the urbanized area at a faster rate than the increase in population. let's say northeast philly (~430k people) were added to the 2.2 million people mostly living in the city's core, you'd have a population density near 20k people per sq mile. as you put it, it puts them on par with houston. the same thing has affected other smaller cities in the metro from camden to wilmington, norristown to chester, phoenixville to pottstown. it's just a different perspective on the same issue. of that list, only philadelphia and phoenixville appear to have made progress in "redensifying") I find norristown the most baffling, the richest county in PA, surrounded by jobs, good housing stock, and it continues to suffer.
I find norristown the most baffling, the richest county in PA, surrounded by jobs, good housing stock, and it continues to suffer.
I have noticed that phenomena worldwide. Money and wealth frequently don't spread among closely co-located areas. The stark contrast of rich and poor within a few miles of each other is seen everywhere.
Uniform income spread is common to areas with uniform ethnicity, and a generally lower than average wealth level. Not poverty, just lower than average. Hungary is a good example.
Hungary is also the first nation in the modern age to begin a declining population without famine, war, or any other natural or social catastrophe. They peaked over 30 years ago.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
